Skip to main content
6:00 pm
accept that to prove someone's identity because the standards are really loose. >> what about physical identification process like fingerprinting? >> that's a good question. fingerprints -- if a person puts down their name and let's say they're fingerprinted like life scan. the appellant was life scanned. if they weren't fingerprinted anywhere else those go to the person's name so you won't get anything different. it's what the person was originally fingerprinted on and that's the problem. the standards for identity are a lot more rigorous now and we're just requiring the same standard that we did in 2003. the federal government has required the states to be more rigorous before issuing identification cards. that's why the appellant can't get a valid government
6:01 pm
identification but more peerntly i want to emphasize if this commission decides that expired identification is okay with letters you will have a standard that is really arbitrary. what is enough? it's a letter from a former supervisor? is it a balance license? what standard are we going to use? >> >> and that would be unfair to the public at a whole. >> do you have any -- >> i do and the issue is background check and you stated the primary reason it requires a valid id so you can do a background check and issue a license for fortuneteller. >> that's correct. that's one of the reasons. >> which makes infinite sense to me, so if a medical marijuana card issued by the state requires a background check to be issued wouldn't it be valid for your licensing purposes?
6:02 pm
>> that's a good question. a thorough and complete background check starts with knowing that your backgrounding the person who is applying for the permit. if that person's identity is something different the background check has no merit, so it's very important -- it wouldn't have any merit because you would be backgrounding somebody who is not the real person applying for the permit. what i am getting at is even if the state of california and i don't think they do a criminal background check. i don't know that for sure but i don't think they do. even if they use a loose standard to identify the applicant for a marijuana card then they did a background check on somebody who may not be that person and that's what the police department is sensitive to. >> i understand that. just to
6:03 pm
me rationally speaking it wouldn't make sense to have a higher standard for fortuneteller than medical marijuana use. that's just me. >> i can speak to that if you give me a minute. the marijuana card is issued primarily -- it wouldn't make sense to do a criminal background check because that is more of a medical issue, so they issue the card so that the bearer of that card can show it to an officer if they stop them and find marijuana on their car or person and the director of public health said in the training those cards shouldn't be considered as general government identification because of the nature of it and there is just a photo and a number. it won't maybe sense. >> to me that is the question and you can't answer it
6:04 pm
definitively for me. thank you. i appreciate that. >> i have a question. in the brief the appellant states that because she had not timely obtained automatic renewal that's when you required a new application and investigation, so but for the fact that a fee wasn't paid she would have her license to do fortuneteller? correct? is that a correct or not correct statement? >> i can't comment. i didn't do the research -- >> so you can't deny or affirm. >> whether that is the case. >> okay. >> commissioner assuming for argument that is the case. >> okay. >> still she allowed her permit to expire. that's the thing. she allowed it to expire and if the standards have changed where we're using more rigorous -- >> you said it's the same standard. >> the identification for the
6:05 pm
state of california to get an id card changed in 2005. >> oh i see. >> the police department expected -- >> so the standard changed? >> not by the police department and valid identification that didn't change. the state of california requires certain documentation before issuing id -- that changed. >> i see. thank you. that's helpful. >> great. thank you. we can take public comment on this item. we're going to take public comment mr. fisher and you will have rebuttal. mr. peskin. >> president hwang and commissioners i guess this is the night for former supervisors. in 2003 in my
6:06 pm
role then as a public servant and thank you for your public service and as a member of the board of supervisors i was indeed approached by the district attorney's office and took me a couple of years that we needed a permitting scheme for cases of fraud in fortuneteller and i authored said legislation. i am very familiar as i set forth in my sworn declaration which was in the san francisco municipal police code requiring such a permit. i am quite familiar with the legislative history and the intent of the law. section 13.04 is very clear about the intent and the intent is to allow the police department to do proper investigations of an applicant by the department. that was done in this case. i
6:07 pm
have known ms. amil for over 20 years and she has recited at 247 columbus avenue for all of those years. she is known to the police at central station. her history is superlative. if you look at my legislation and i am disappointed that you didn't, and you will see that the legislation requires a background check, a background check she went through and passed and by the way the legislation also says that the department can deny in the case of a felony or two or more misdemeanors so she complied with that law. she has been an upstanding member of the community. yes after 2011 the law changed and i believe this is a manifest injustice. i
6:08 pm
never appeared before this body and didn't appear before the peal peal for over a decade but when i see manifest injustice like this i feel compelled to ask you to grant the appeal and allow this woman to practice her livelihood. thank you for listening to my comments commissioners. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? seeing none we will move into rebuttal. mr. fisher. >> the medical marijuana card is a government issued id. that's all the ordinance says. you need to present a government issued id. it has a photo of her. there say number on it and we offered to the police department to match the number with the name we would cooperate. we put it on the record tonight. it's a
6:09 pm
government issued id and in fact if you look at page five of the respondent's brief there say reference to the medical marijuana card as an scpasm of something that she couldn't get and therefore couldn't prove identity or something. it's at the bottom of page five. the investigation that was done thoroughly before it was issued again had reference to the 1979 file they had on her, so for decades and decades she's been known to the police department and this is kind of bizarre what we're talking about is the question of identity, proof of identity. the police department knows and they have thoroughly investigated. they took fingerprints and issued the permit and during each year that it was renewed they had continuing authority to do investigations, and they could
6:10 pm
do it with respect to the new application, but chose not to rather standing on the argument her identity isn't presented. as to the real id issue that's discussed at length in the respondent's brief i don't think has any application here. it has to do with kind of state id might be usable for certain kinds of federal jobs. it doesn't go into effect for several years and it doesn't go into effect if the person is over a certain age and mrs. a amil is over that age and has no application to this proceeding so i would hope that you fairly and reasonably apply the facts to the ordinance requirement, and reverse. thank you. >> counselor, why did your client let her license lapse? >> there was some mix up in
6:11 pm
when the fee was due, and in fact not so long after when it was realized it was due mr. amil went to the -- i don't remember all of the details, but he went to the office where you pay fees and brought a check, and there was some mix up what it was applied for, but the bottom line it wasn't paid timely in 2010, so they required the new application, and they wouldn't process it because of the id thing and they kept continuing it for a long time and she made efforts to get it. she was obviously motivated to engage in her work and has not been able to do so.
6:12 pm
>> okay. >> we believe that a proper investigation starts with knowing who the person is. in 2003 if she was able to obtain government id the state was comfortable knowing it was issued to a particular person. i disagree with the attorney regarding what the real identification act's purpose was. obviously california changed its standard to the point where they don't know who she is, and they're not comfortable issuing a government id. again i implore you to give a reasonable interpretation to what government identification means in statutes and it means valid identification. a card that is expired really has no value. as far as supervisor peskin we have a lot of respect
6:13 pm
for them but he doesn't speak of the whole board at the time the legislation was passed. i talked to margaret -- if i get the name right, bomb grard ner and she was the city attorney that drafted the legislation and it was her interpretation it meant valid identification. as far as the history of the appellant not having problems. she does have a criminal record for the type of offensives that the legislation was passed to prevent want as far as the interpretation of 13.04 if you look at it really wants the background to cover addresses, accurate birth dates, prior business locations. it requires quite a bit, and that starts with knowing who the applicant is and the best standard for
6:14 pm
that is valid government identification. if you can't get that how can the police department feel comfortable granting her a permit or doing a background investigation? and the fact that the appellant was able to get a permit under a losing standard, less rigorous doesn't mean the police department should accept that now, and season as far as your decision here today will have the effect of interpreting government -- what government identification is for other permit holders as well, so we implore upon this commission to give it that definition, a concommon sense, real interpretation. even though this seems compelling like i said we're not opposed to continuing this hearing so the applicant can make other efforts to get government identification and there are ways to do that i am sure. it may cost some
6:15 pm
money but there are ways to get that identification. do you have any questions? >> this maybe an aside, but are you aware to get a passport you need to have a birth certificate? >> yes. >> now -- today you would have to have a birth certificate to get a passport. >> i think in my brief mentions that a passport -- there are certain requirements showing proof of birth, like who you are. i guess i can look at that very specifically if you want and get that information. >> okay. >> but the argument that you can use an exfired passport. that's because to get a passport you have this rigorous standard, birth date, showing where you live, a photo of who are you. there is a standard so the
6:16 pm
federal -- i guess the state department allows expired passports because of the standard to get one initially. >> thank you. and the police department has no fingerprinting requirements? >> for this permit? >> for this permit. >> ms. amil had to submit to live scan which is fingerprinting but the point there if she used an assume name or anything use be an assumed name and they weren't fingerprinted somewhere else it would go to that name. we are just trying to make sure -- sorry commissioner. >> just for clarification you do have on record ms. amil's fingerprints? >> yes. >> so if she would submit the same fingerprints you could determine she's the same person with the fingerprints that you
6:17 pm
have? is that correct? do you have fingerprints from the original? how long ago? >>i assume from argument from 2003 and had to submit a new set in 2010. >> right. so if the fingerprints line up wouldn't it be safe to assume it's the same human or no? >> no. it would want be. >> no? what's the point of the fingerprints? i mean -- >> i hear you. i got t the fingerprinting does a record check of anybody who comitded crimes -- >> okay. that's the point of it. >> so i'm john doe and i gave a set of fingerprints and crimes in nevada and years ago before that i was mark and if you want to be thorough and complete you
6:18 pm
need ton who the person is. that's how we get aliases and things. >> thank you. >> all right. >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> any comments? >>i think my comments and reasonable reading of the statute and hearing from the author of the statute suggests to me that the intent behind it was not to require this revised standard of rigor for the one element that is apparently preventing ms. amil from pursuing her career as a fortuneteller. i don't think there is question here in my
6:19 pm
mind that the california government id that was presented as new evidence today is government issued id, so both in interpreting the statute doesn't require an unexpired id and second if you must read it that way the medical marijuana card issued by the california state government indicating who this individual is is sufficient and should be sufficient to allow her to continue her career as a fortuneteller and allow this permit to go forward. i think all of the equities furthermore would compel that result as well. that's where i am at. >> i have to agree and i couldn't have said it better myself. i particularly find it
6:20 pm
persuasive that mr. peskin is here today. that there is the government issued id and there is in my experience and in my view there is the opportunity to check fingerprints against criminal history, against the prior prints that were provided when the license was originally issued, and i am frankly dumbfounded that the police department has not done that and instead chose to deny this license and bring it here, so i think my vote is pretty clear to over turn the denial of the permit. >> i also agree with my fellow commissioners. i think she's the same person she was in 2003 and maybe she might have been a different person prior, but we're talking about someone that unfortunately did not pay a fee and here we are, so common
6:21 pm
sense would say that to let her continue on her profession. >> i will move to grant the appeal and overturn the denial of the permit on the basis -- well, my basis would be based on the fact that the medical marijuana id issued by the state of california is government issued id within the meaning of the code.
6:22 pm
>> we have a motion then from commissioner hurtado to grant this appeal, overrule the denial and issue this permit on the basis or with the finding that the state issued medical marijuana id is a valid government id under the code. correct? on that motion to over rule commissioner fung. >> aye. >> president hwang. >> aye. >> vice president is absent. commissioner honda. >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is four-zero. the denial is overruled and the permit shall issue with that finding. thank you. >> thank you. we're going to take a break. this is going to be a long night so at least
6:23 pm
>> welcome back for the february 13th, 2013, board of appeals, we are calling number six, 12-157. maria yuhas, appealing the position on the 90 day suspension on-ramp taxi medallion no 9038. it is on for today and the agents that seven minutes to present the case. >> good evening, commissioners, my name is jacob masel and i represent maria yuhas on this manner. i am with the cab company here in the city of san francisco. and i really hope that we are not going to meet together and just we could settle that
6:24 pm
quietly. i will try to make my point and be successful in that. back in 94, there was medallions, they were created sort of for the disabled community and i think that it was the right step. it started with a very small number and then expanded up to 100. and, the task was to serve wheelchair-bound people and give them a priority, so to speak, when there is a choice for the cab driver who to pick up, the wheelchair customer obviously would go first.
6:25 pm
back, this is the taxi cab, regulations dated back to 2000. and throughout all regulations, that consumed ramp or wheelchair accessible minivans it said, if available from the services, it is desirable to have the wheelchair pick ups, that was back in 2000. it was... this number three wheelchair pick up was adopted way back then because we did not have in san francisco, an entire mini fleet that could deal and pick up those wheel-chair bound users, there
6:26 pm
was not that many vehicles in san francisco city that served the community. and there was a lot of changes since then, the 100 wheelchair capable taxi cabs, and every single muni bus is adopable or available, or able to pick up those wheelchair people beside hundreds and hundreds of dollars, buses that serve the community, my point here is when san francisco city took over in 2009 from the taxi commission, a lot of things changed. no umbudsman that insists between the city and which is
6:27 pm
huge on its own, and when sfmt came out with the draft or memorandum back at the end of 2011, i immediately expressed my opinion about that to the sfmtstaff saying that this is just illogical, you can't regulate something which is random. taxi cab van, even though it is a van is not a bus that has a certain route and has a schedule given to the driver who to pick up and what time. i know this vehicle from inside out and i sit to it and i sit next to it and i often accept those phone calls and i monitor what is going on and i also drive. and i mean this is a random job, based upon many factors,
6:28 pm
the experience, the qualification and the month, the time of date and so forth. i don't think that this rule can apply to the taxi cab drivers. maria yuhas is a known and bonefide driver to 20 years, and it is a fact that she never had a single complaint from the public before the police department, taxi commission and sfmt, say that she refused to conveyor something, from mr. lewis admission to me, he stated that he knows that she is driving and she would pick up anything that moves, including wheelchairs. and this is exactly what maria is doing. we can't measure wait someone's
6:29 pm
loyal ship. >> mt came out with this recommendation of what to do or how to work. well it is a sort of double-edged sword or a two-way ... you can't... you can't... the taxi cab drivers are independent contractors. you can't tell them how to work or what to do between 4:00 a.m. or 4:00 p.m. and at the same time, telling them that listen, you should go to this place and that places and that is exactly what she was doing. she would start the shift driving by hospitals and if there is a fare available she picks up, if not she moves on. she often goes to the airports. she was going to the medallion granted in 2008 and was stayed with the program as a mandatory term

February 15, 2013 6:00pm-6:30pm PST

TOPIC FREQUENCY California 7, San Francisco 3, Maria Yuhas 3, Mr. Peskin 2, Mr. Fisher 2, Hwang 2, San Francisco City 2, Fung 1, John Doe 1, Hurtado 1, Ms. Amil 1, Appellant 1, Honda 1, Mr. Lewis 1, Wheelchairs 1, Mt 1, Bonefide 1, Jacob Masel 1, Nevada 1, Peskin 1
Network SFGTV
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 24 (225 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 528
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color